ManM

Seeing Bill go <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000256" target="_blank">ballistic</a> over license plates has really got me wondering if we are pushing the church/state issue too far. It seems to me that the separation is grounded on the moral principles of liberty and freedom. I fail to see how offering religious license plates for sale does anything to infringe on liberty or freedom.

So what is going on here? It seems to me that the separation of church and state has lost its grounding and become an necessity unto itself. As such I fear it may lead to the very oppression it was designed to fight. So can someone please explain to me the reasoning behind the absolute separation of church and state? Why is it wrong for a gov't sanctioned company to offer religious license plates?

Corwin

It's fairly simple really.

The ONLY way to have religious freedom is to have absolute freedom FROM religion.

To put it another way, if you can force me to support any religious organization at all, or attend any church at all.... then someone else can come in and force you to support or attend a particular church.

hezekiah jones

Because Bill's tax dollars are being used to support the promotion and endorsement of sectarian religion, a violation of the establishment clause. Bill has a legitimate and well supported grievance, and Bill has a specifically enumerated constitutional right to seek redress of his grievance.

ManM

Corwin,
To me, religious freedom entails the freedom to believe without any sanctions or penalties for that belief. The offering of a religious license plate does not impose any penalties on you for your atheism. No one is forcing you to buy one. In a case where no freedom is challenged, I find it hard to justify the sort of action Bill is pushing. The problems begin when religion (or any other philosophy) is imposed. Absolute freedom from religious material is unnecessary and imposing such a split becomes just as oppressive as an imposed religion.

hezekiah jones,
I suspect the sale of religious license plates in North Carolina is less a matter of religious promotion and more a matter of economics. If the company thought they could turn a profit selling plates promoting atheism, I'm quite sure we would see them offered. His tax dollars are supporting a company that sells license plates. This company offers religious license plates to the bible thumpers in the area. It would be a different story if the company exclusively offered religious plates, but that is not the case.

In a more general sense, you have fallen back on what I mentioned before. People are taking the separation to be a necessity in itself. Why? What is the deep philosophical problem with a government supported company offering a religious license plate for sale? How is it different from a company offering a "Save the Whales" license plate to environmentalists?

Corwin

I hear this alot with regards to church/state separation issues. Religious people will tell us to 'quit whining' or ask how it really bothers us...

The simple fact is that when you break our perfectly just and reasonable laws, it pisses us off.

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'

This is a pretty simple statement. Our reasons for not wanting any state endorsement of your religious beliefs are varied, but mostly we don't want you getting an official endorsement of your beliefs. If there's one thing history has shown us, it's that once religious types get official sanction, they start slapping down their religious restrictions on society in general, and imprisoning or killing people who disagree. In addition, all of these things are tax funded. Let's look at this, shall we?

Ten Commandments monuments are a good example to use here. 'What's wrong with it? The Ten Commandments are the basis of our culture and how does it hurt YOU anyway?' What's wrong with it is that it promotes a dangerous lie that our system is somehow based on the ten commandments... (it isn't, not even close. Our legal system is almost purely pagan... drawing from the Roman and Norse republics, and from the Greek, specifically Athenian democracy...) and it gives the impression that the state actually supports the ideas on the monument. Now, with 'thou shalt not kill,' this isn't such a bad thing... for 'I am the LORD thy God, thou shalt have no other Gods before me...' we have a slight problem. A monument like this takes my secular tax dollars and uses them to promote an idealogy that openly endorses the idea that I should be eternally tortured for no worse crime than peaceful dissent. And people wonder why I have a problem with this?

ManM

Corwin,
This is a different case than that of the 10 commandments. If you want to go that route I suggest making a new thread. The religious license plates are an option, not a requirement. On what grounds do you forbid the option? By forbidding the option you are directly limiting freedom and liberty. In this way you are acting in exactly the same manner as the religious zealot who limits your freedom by imposing his beliefs on you. I want the separation of church and state to protect my freedom, not limit it.

Doug

While I thought twice about Bill's objection to the license plates, the fact of the matter is that it is government promotion of religion as it stands right now. I wouldn't have a problem with it if there was equal access (I posed this in Bill's thread). I would be surprised if a group could get the state to publish atheist plates. If this was the case, then I think the government would have to stop publishing the religious themed plates as well. I would take the equal access tact, because I think your argument has at least some merit. I also think the courts quite possibly would feel the same. Equal access would kill this thing I believe.

I'm not so sure you're right here. I do think the argument would be made that there isn't enough demand for atheist plates, thus squashing the equal access idea. We probably wouldn't know if it was true or not. Even if the atheist plates were introduced, I bet the public outcry would make anything Bill is doing seem tame.

The cases Bill sites show that a private organization hired as an agency of the government in fact is an extention of the government.

If other plates are available through the state or from other manufacturers then this would not hold.

"Save the Whale" activism doesn't fall under the 1st ammendment. Religious protection does. This is a very important distinction, IMO.

I do, however, see your point in that I am sure there are people that do not agree with the enviromentalist stance in your example that are seeing their government dollars go toward the program, etc.

The Other Michael

ManM,

It seems like you wouldn't have any problems with that company (which is acting as an arm of the state) also selling copies of the Koran, Bible, Book of the Mormon, glow in the dark Jesus dashboard statues, indulgences, official thuggee strangling cords, e-meters, and any number of other religious knicknacks.

Shucks, maybe they could hire Oral to come in and sermonize - I bet that would bring in the bucks too, based on his track record. There's no reason why any citizen wouldn't want to listen to Oral while waiting in line for a new license plate.

After all, they are just trying to make a buck, so they may as well go whole hog.

cheers,
Michael

ManM

Michael,
You are quite right. I would have no problem with them selling any religious material, be it Christian, Islamic, Wiccan, or whatever. And even if I did find a problem, I would go through political channels to try to get the company's contract revoked in a democratic fashion. Going through the legal system to ban such a practice is oppressive and wrong. However, I would definitely have a problem with them forcing you to listen to Oral. But anyway, I don't think lawyers have any business limiting options and taking away freedoms without a good reason. You have a case if you can show that selling religious material is oppressive. Until then, I see no reason to take away someone's freedom to buy a license plate with a religious message on it. In doing so, you are no better than those you are trying to protect yourself against.

hezekiah jones

I don't recall any test in which the courts deemed that putative violations of the establishment clause need be "oppressive." Can you cite a case that imposes such a strict standard?

"Freedom" to purchase trite Christian knick knacks from the government?? You have got to be joking!

As if religious materials for commercial sale are so extremely difficult to locate in this country that the government needs to step in and make these items more widely available.

Good heavens, Man.

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiah jones ]</p>